ITAT Hyderabad Judgments — July 2019

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee was not interested in effectively pursuing the appeal. Following Supreme Court and ITAT precedents, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as it was an oversight. The Tribunal, following a previous decision for AY 2012-13, remitted the issue back to the AO for de-novo consideration after obtaining necessary approvals.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) should be calculated on the average of investments that yielded exempt income, not on total investments. The AO was directed to recalculate the disallowance accordingly.

The Tribunal held that clause 7.30 allowing modification of objects and clause 7.27 regarding dissolution need to be amended to ensure consistency with the granted registration and to ensure funds are transferred only to registered charitable trusts.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under section 274 for penalty proceedings was illegal, as per the jurisdictional High Court's decision. Since the initiation of penalty proceedings was bad in law, the penalty levied was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was completed without proper jurisdiction as the notice under Section 148 was issued by a non-jurisdictional AO and the jurisdictional AO failed to issue a fresh notice. Section 292BB was not applicable as the assessee had raised objections regarding notice service.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the assessee had provided evidence of the building being in use, such as payment of Panchayat taxes and increased electricity charges. The AO's disallowance of depreciation on other items was also found to be without proper reasoning.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal, following its previous decisions, found that estimating income at 3% of the cost of goods sold is reasonable for this business. Therefore, the AO was directed to adopt 3% as the net profit rate.

The Tribunal held that the order of the CIT(Exemptions) was not sustainable as it was passed before the date of hearing, violating principles of natural justice. The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement to file the Section 12A application within one year of the trust's formation. The benefits under Sections 11 and 12 can be granted from the assessment year following the financial year in which the application is made.

The Tribunal held that there is no legal requirement to file the Section 12A application within one year of the trust's formation. The benefits under Sections 11 and 12 can be granted from the assessment year following the financial year in which the application is made.

The Tribunal admitted additional evidence regarding NBFCs offering income to tax and directed the AO to verify it, potentially avoiding disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia). The Tribunal also directed that the Rs. 6 lakhs admitted by the assessee be telescoped against disallowances for partner's son's marriage expenses and car maintenance.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have dismissed the appeal in limine but should have given the assessee an opportunity to e-file the appeal as per the relevant circular. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for adjudication on merits.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with the necessary evidence and an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents. Therefore, the assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing the assessee with the necessary evidence and an opportunity to cross-examine the deponents. The assessment order was set aside.

The Tribunal held that since the quantum of addition on which the penalty was levied was deleted by a coordinate bench, the penalty cannot be sustained. Consequently, the order of the CIT(A) directing the deletion of the penalty was upheld.

The Tribunal held that the AO's rectification order was void ab initio as it failed to follow the mandatory procedure of issuing a draft assessment order under Section 144C(1). This violated the assessee's right to appeal to the DRP.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate income at 2% of gross receipts. It reasoned that since there was no change in the business model, the AO could not arbitrarily increase the estimation rate without any deviation.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision that the consequential order passed by the AO was void ab initio due to being time-barred. Therefore, the appeal filed by the revenue was dismissed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the unexplained cash and the assessee's share of the land payment. The Tribunal found the assessee's explanations to be an afterthought, lacking substantiation and not raised during earlier proceedings.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeals, acknowledging the peculiar circumstances. On merits, the Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not considered the diary entries holistically, failing to telescope receipts against investments. Therefore, the matter was remanded for de novo consideration.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee has now provided additional evidence, including confirmation letters from investors, which require verification, the matter should be remanded to the AO. The AO is directed to verify these additional evidences and decide the issue after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that since the assessee filed a belated return under Section 139(4) before the completion of assessment, and the declared income was accepted by the revenue, there was no concealment of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the identity, source, and genuineness of the funds deposited in both assessment years. The evidence provided, including bank statements and confirmations, satisfied the requirements for explaining the cash deposits.

The Tribunal found that while the CIT(A) had no fault in passing an ex-parte order due to the assessee's non-appearance, in the interest of justice, the matter should be reconsidered. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes to provide a fresh opportunity to the assessee.

The Tribunal held that while disallowance under Section 14A is applicable for normal income computation, it cannot be added for computing book profit under Section 115JB as it does not directly impact the Profit and Loss Account. The appeal was partly allowed.

The Tribunal, following a jurisdictional High Court decision, allowed the assessee to e-file the appeal within two weeks. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the appeal on merits without reference to the limitation, as it was originally filed within time.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the identity, source, and genuineness of the funds deposited in both assessment years. The evidence provided, including bank statements and confirmations, satisfied the requirements for explaining the cash deposits.

The Tribunal directed the AO to estimate net profit at 3% of the cost of goods sold, following similar past decisions. However, it rejected the ground regarding sale of cartons and incentives, holding they are not part of estimated business income.

The Tribunal held that a proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure was justified as the borrowed funds were mixed with own funds and utilized for investments, some of which yielded exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CIT(A) was sustained.

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee, which included proof of his wife's income and her confirmation of the gift. The issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that a proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure was justified as the borrowed funds were mixed with own funds and utilized for investments, some of which yielded exempt income. Therefore, the disallowance made by the CIT(A) was sustained.

The Tribunal held that the rejection of the rectification petition without providing an opportunity of being heard violated the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal held that the assessee had received sale consideration and parted with possession of the property, making capital gains chargeable to tax. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal for non-appearance.

The Tribunal held that the enhanced sale consideration was not interest but part of the sale price. It also found that the assessee was eligible for Section 54F exemption despite construction delays caused by the developer.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's object clause allows leasing property for commercial purposes and that the department accepted similar income as business income in subsequent years. The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remitted the issue back to the AO for fresh verification.

The Tribunal held that estimation of income at 3% of the cost of goods sold is reasonable for the wine business, following previous decisions. For the bar and restaurant, the CIT(A)'s direction to estimate at 8% of the cost of sales was confirmed.

The Tribunal decided to remit the issue back to the AO to verify the assessee's claim regarding the revised return and the affidavit. The AO is to decide the matter in accordance with the law, considering the affidavit and allowing deduction under Section 57 if applicable.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the CIT(A), stating that the assessee could not adequately explain the sources of the cash deposits. The claim of substantial cash balance from Wealth Tax returns was also rejected as an afterthought.

The Tribunal, following consistent past rulings for similar businesses, held that an estimation of income at 3% of the cost of goods sold is reasonable. Therefore, the AO was directed to adopt this rate for estimating the assessee's income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not appeared before the tax authorities. However, the assessee submitted additional evidence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal decided to remit the issue to the AO for verification of the additional evidence.

The Tribunal held that as per the India-Netherlands DTAA, the tax rate, including surcharge and education cess, cannot exceed 10%. Relying on previous tribunal decisions, it ruled that education cess is a form of surcharge and should be included within the treaty's tax limit.

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be taxed on income wrongly declared due to a genuine mistake in the e-return. The Assessing Officer has a duty to rectify such errors.